22372 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Notices 

1See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Final Results of ChangedCircumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order 

in Part, 75 FR 53661 (September 1, 2010) (AFBs 20). 

2See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, et al.: Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 69402 

(November 12, 2010), and Ball Bearings and Parts 

Thereof From France: Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 

327 (January 4, 2011) (collectively Rescission). 

Act and 19 CFR 351.216, 351.221, and 

351.222. 

Dated: April 14, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9717 Filed 4–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–427–801, A–428–801, A–475–801, A–588– 

804, A–412–801] 

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the 

United Kingdom: Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Administrative and 

Changed-Circumstances Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to requests from 

interested parties, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting administrative reviews of 

the antidumping duty orders on ball 

bearings and parts thereof from France, 

Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 

Kingdom for the period May 1, 2009, 

through April 30, 2010. We have 

preliminarily determined that sales have 

been made below normal value by 

certain companies subject to these 

reviews. We have also preliminarily 

determined that Schaeffler Technologies 

GmbH & Co. KG is the successor-ininterest to Schaeffler KG with respect to 

the order on ball bearings and parts 

thereof from Germany. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit comments in these 

reviews are requested to submit with 

each argument (1) a statement of the 

issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 21, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 5, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0410. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 15, 1989, the Department 

published the antidumping duty orders 

on ball bearings and parts thereof from 

France (54 FR 20902), Germany (54 FR 

20900), Italy (54 FR 20903), Japan (54 

FR 20904), and the United Kingdom (54 

FR 20910) in the Federal Register. On 

June 30, 2010, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.221(b), we published a notice 

of initiation of administrative reviews of 

133 companies subject to these orders. 

See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 75 FR 37759 (June 30, 2010) 

(Initiation Notice). 

Subsequent to the initiation of these 

reviews we published in the Federal 

Register the final results of the 2008– 

2009 administrative reviews of the 

orders, in which we revoked the 

antidumping duty order on ball bearings 

and parts thereof from the United 

Kingdom, in part, with respect to 

merchandise exported or sold by The 

Barden Corporation (U.K.) Limited and 

Schaeffler (U.K.) Limited (The 

Schaeffler Group) effective May 1, 

2009.1 As a result we rescinded the 

2009–2010 administrative review of the 

order on merchandise from the United 

Kingdom.2 We have also rescinded the 

administrative reviews with respect to 

34 other companies based on the 

withdrawals of the applicable requests 

for reviews. See Rescission. 

On January 14, 2011, we issued a 

notice of extension of the deadline for 

completion of the preliminary results of 

reviews from January 31, 2011, to March 

17, 2011. See Ball Bearings and Parts 

Thereof From France, et al.: Extension 

of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 76 FR 2647 (January 14, 2011). 

On March 22, 2011, we issued a second 

notice of extension of the deadline for 

completion of the preliminary results of 

reviews from March 17, 2011, to April 

18, 2011. See Ball Bearings and Parts 

Thereof From France, et al.: Extension 

of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative and 

Changed-Circumstances Reviews, 76 FR 

15940 (March 22, 2011). 

The period of review is May 1, 2009, 

through April 30, 2010. The Department 

is conducting these administrative 

reviews in accordance with section 751 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act). 

Scope of the Orders 

The products covered by the orders 

are ball bearings and parts thereof. 

These products include all antifriction 

bearings that employ balls as the rolling 

element. Imports of these products are 

classified under the following 

categories: Antifriction balls, ball 

bearings with integral shafts, ball 

bearings (including radial ball bearings) 

and parts thereof, and housed or 

mounted ball bearing units and parts 

thereof. 

Imports of these products are 

classified under the following 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 

3926.90.45, 4016.93.10, 4016.93.50, 

6909.19.50.10, 8414.90.41.75, 

8431.20.00, 8431.39.00.10, 8482.10.10, 

8482.10.50, 8482.80.00, 8482.91.00, 

8482.99.05, 8482.99.35, 8482.99.25.80, 

8482.99.65.95, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 

8483.30.40, 8483.30.80, 8483.50.90, 

8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.70, 

8708.50.50, 8708.60.50, 8708.60.80, 

8708.93.30, 8708.93.60.00, 8708.99.06, 

8708.99.31.00, 8708.99.40.00, 

8708.99.49.60, 8708.99.58, 

8708.99.80.15, 8708.99.80.80, 

8803.10.00, 8803.20.00, 8803.30.00, 

8803.90.30, 8803.90.90, 8708.30.50.90, 

8708.40.75.70, 8708.40.75.80, 

8708.50.79.00, 8708.50.89.00, 

8708.50.91.50, 8708.50.99.00, 

8708.70.60.60, 8708.80.65.90, 

8708.93.75.00, 8708.94.75, 

8708.95.20.00, 8708.99.55.00, 

8708.99.68, and 8708.99.81.80. 

Although the HTSUS item numbers 

above are provided for convenience and 

customs purposes, the written 

descriptions of the scope of the orders 

remain dispositive. 

The size or precision grade of a 

bearing does not influence whether the 

bearing is covered by one of the orders. 

The orders cover all the subject bearings 

and parts thereof (inner race, outer race, 

cage, rollers, balls, seals, shields, etc.) 

outlined above with certain limitations. 

With regard to finished parts, all such 

parts are included in the scope of the 

orders. For unfinished parts, such parts 

are included if they have been heattreated or if heat treatment is not 

required to be performed on the part. 

Thus, the only unfinished parts that are 

not covered by the orders are those that 

will be subject to heat treatment after 

importation. The ultimate application of 

a bearing also does not influence 

whether the bearing is covered by the 

orders. Bearings designed for highly 

specialized applications are not 

excluded. Any of the subject bearings, 

regardless of whether they may 

ultimately be utilized in aircraft, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Notices 22373 

3See ‘‘Use of Facts Otherwise Available section.’’ 

4Revocation resulted in rescission of the review 

with respect to these firms. See ‘‘Background’’ 

section above and Rescission. 

automobiles, or other equipment, are 

within the scope of the orders. 

For a list of scope determinations 

which pertain to the orders, see the 

‘‘Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill’’ 

regarding scope determinations for the 

2009/2010 reviews, dated concurrently 

with this notice, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit (CRU) of the main 

Commerce building, room 7046, in the 

General Issues record (A–100–001). 

Selection of Respondents 

Due to the large number of companies 

in the reviews and the resulting 

administrative burden to examine each 

company for which a request had been 

made and not withdrawn, the 

Department exercised its authority to 

limit the number of respondents 

selected for individual examination in 

these reviews. Where it is not 

practicable to examine all known 

exporters/producers of subject 

merchandise because of the large 

number of such companies, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act allows the 

Department to limit its examination to 

either a sample of exporters, producers, 

or types of products that is statistically 

valid, based on the information 

available at the time of selection, or 

exporters and producers accounting for 

the largest volume of subject 

merchandise from the exporting country 

that can be reasonably examined. 

Accordingly, in June 2010 we 

requested information concerning the 

quantity and value of sales to the United 

States from the 133 exporters/producers 

for which we had initiated reviews. We 

received responses from most of the 

exporters/producers subject to the 

reviews; some companies withdrew 

their requests for review and some 

companies did not respond to our 

request for information.3 Based on our 

analysis of the responses and our 

available resources, we chose to 

examine the sales of certain companies. 

See Memoranda to Laurie Parkhill, 

dated August 18, 2010, for the detailed 

analysis of the selection process for each 

country-specific review. We selected the 

following companies for individual 

examination: 

Country Company 

France ......... SKF France S.A. and SKF 

Aerospace France S.A.S 

(SKF France) SNR 

Roulements S.A./SNR Europe (SNR). 

Germany ..... Schaeffler KG myonic GmbH 

(myonic). 

Country Company 

Italy .............. Schaeffler Italia S.r.l. (formerly 

FAG Italia S.p.A.) SKF 

Industrie S.p.A./Somecat 

S.p.A. (SKF Italy). 

Japan .......... NTN Corporation (NTN) NSK 

Ltd. 

United Kingdom.Barden Corporation (U.K.) 

Limited and Schaeffler 

(U.K.) Limited 4 NSK Bearings Europe Ltd. (NSK 

U.K.). 

Non-Selected Respondents 

For the respondents we did not 

examine individually in the 

administrative reviews of the orders on 

merchandise from France, Germany, 

and Italy, we cannot apply our normal 

methodology of calculating a weightedaverage margin using the results of the 

reviews for the two respondents we 

selected in each review for individual 

examination due to their requests to 

protect their business-proprietary 

information. In such situations, it is our 

normal practice to calculate a weightedaverage margin using the publicly 

available U.S. sales values and 

antidumping duty margins of the two 

selected respondents or to use the 

simple average of their margins, 

depending on which result is closer to 

the actual weighted-average margin of 

the companies in question. See AFBs 20 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

For responding companies in the 

administrative reviews of the orders on 

subject merchandise from France, 

Germany, and Italy that were not 

individually examined, we have used 

weighted-average margins and the 

publicly available U.S. sales values of 

the two selected respondents in each 

respective review to calculate the 

weighted-average margin. Therefore, we 

have applied, for these preliminary 

results, the rate of 5.12 percent (France), 

the rate of 6.26 percent (Germany), and 

the rate of 12.32 percent (Italy) to the 

firms not individually examined in the 

respective reviews. See the countryspecific Memoranda to the File 

concerning Respondents Not Selected 

for Individual Examination for France, 

Germany, and Italy dated concurrently 

with this notice for an explanation of 

our calculations. 

With respect to the responding 

companies which remain under review 

and which we did not select for 

individual examination in the review of 

the order on subject merchandise from 

the United Kingdom, we have assigned 

the margin we have calculated for NSK 

U.K. of 5.90 percent to these firms 

because, after rescission of the review 

with respect to Barden Corporation 

(U.K.) Limited and Schaeffler (U.K) 

Limited, NSK U.K. was the sole 

remaining company selected for 

individual examination. With respect to 

the responding companies which 

remain under review and which we did 

not select for individual examination in 

the review of the order on subject 

merchandise from Japan, because we do 

not have publicly available information 

on U.S. sales value for one of the 

selected respondents, we have assigned 

to the non-selected respondents the 

simple-average margin of the two 

respondents selected for individual 

examination; that rate is 11.36 percent. 

Voluntary Respondents 

We received voluntary responses from 

Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd. (Asahi), and Mori 

Seiki Co., Ltd., with respect to the 

review of the order on merchandise 

from Japan. Due to changes in our 

workload since our initial selection of 

respondents for individual examination, 

we decided to treat these firms as firms 

selected for individual examination as 

well. See Memorandum to Laurie 

Parkhill dated November 15, 2010. 

No-Shipments Respondent 

On July 15, 2010, SNR UK submitted 

a letter indicating that it made no sales 

to the United States during the period 

of review. We have not received any 

comments on SNR UK’s submission. We 

confirmed SNR UK’s claim of no 

shipments by issuing a ‘‘No-Shipments 

Inquiry’’ to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) on March 18, 2011. 

With regard to SNR UK’s claim of no 

shipments, our practice since 

implementation of the 1997 regulations 

concerning no-shipments respondents 

has been to rescind the administrative 

review if the respondent certifies that it 

had no shipments and we have 

confirmed through our examination of 

CBP data that there were no shipments 

of subject merchandise during the POR. 

See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 

1997), and Oil Country Tubular Goods 

from Japan: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of 

Review, 70 FR 53161, 53162 (September 

7, 2005), unchanged in Oil Country 

Tubular Goods from Japan: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 95 (January 3, 2006). As 

a result, in such circumstances, we 

normally instruct CBP to liquidate any 

entries from the no-shipment company 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
22374 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Notices 

at the deposit rate in effect on the date 

of entry. 

In our May 6, 2003, ‘‘automatic 

assessment’’ clarification, we explained 

that, where respondents in an 

administrative review demonstrate that 

they had no knowledge of sales through 

resellers to the United States, we would 

instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 

the all-others rate applicable to the 

proceeding. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (May 2003 

clarification). 

Based on SNR UK’s assertion of no 

shipments and no indication from CBP 

that there are suspended entries of 

subject merchandise from SNR UK, we 

preliminarily determine that SNR UK 

had no sales to the United States during 

the POR. 

Because ‘‘as entered’’ liquidation 

instructions do not alleviate the 

concerns which the May 2003 

clarification was intended to address, 

we find it appropriate in this case to 

instruct CBP to liquidate any existing 

entries of merchandise produced by 

SNR UK at the all-others rate should we 

continue to find at the time of our final 

results that SNR UK had no shipments 

of subject merchandise from the United 

Kingdom. See Magnesium Metal From 

the Russian Federation: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922, 

26933 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in 

Magnesium Metal From the Russian 

Federation: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 56989 (September 17, 

2010). See also Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from India: Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 77610, 

77612 (December 19, 2008). In addition, 

the Department finds that it is more 

consistent with the May 2003 

clarification not to rescind the review in 

part in these circumstances but, rather, 

to complete the review with respect to 

SNR UK and issue appropriate 

instructions to CBP based on the final 

results of the review. See the 

‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section of this 

notice below. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we have verified information 

provided by NSK Ltd. and Schaeffler 

KG. 

We conducted these verifications 

using standard verification procedures 

including the examination of relevant 

sales and financial records and the 

selection and review of original 

documentation containing relevant 

information. Our verification results are 

outlined in the public versions of our 

verification reports which are on file in 

CRU, room 7046 of the main 

Department building. 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available 

For the reasons discussed below, we 

determine that the use of adverse facts 

available (AFA) is appropriate for the 

preliminary results of reviews with 

respect to several companies. 

A. Use of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party withholds 

information requested by the 

administering authority, fails to provide 

such information by the deadlines for 

submission of the information and in 

the form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act, significantly impedes a 

proceeding under this title, or provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified as provided in 

section 782(i) of the Act, the 

administering authority shall use, 

subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. Section 

782(d) of the Act provides that, if the 

administering authority determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

administering authority shall promptly 

inform the responding party and, to the 

extent practicable, provide an 

opportunity to remedy the deficient 

submission. If the party fails to remedy 

the deficiency within the applicable 

time limits, the Department may 

disregard, subject to section 782(e) of 

the Act, all or part of the original and 

subsequent responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act provides that 

the Department ‘‘shall not decline to 

consider information that is submitted 

by an interested party and is necessary 

to the determination but does not meet 

all the applicable requirements 

established by the administering 

authority’’ if the information is timely, 

can be verified, and is not so incomplete 

that it cannot be used and if the 

interested party acted to the best of its 

ability in providing the information. 

Where all of these conditions are met, 

the statute requires the Department to 

use the information if it can do so 

without undue difficulties. 

The following companies did not 

respond to our request to provide 

information concerning the quantity and 

value of their U.S. sales: France— 

AVIAC, Eurocopter SAS, Groupe 

Intertechnique, SNECMA, and 

Tecnofan; Italy—Eurocopter and 

SNECMA; Japan—Tsubakimoto. 

Because these companies did not 

respond to our request, we could not 

determine whether and to what extent 

these companies participated in sales of 

subject merchandise to the U.S. market. 

Moreover, because these companies 

failed to provide the information 

requested and thus significantly 

impeded the respective country-specific 

reviews, we find that we must base their 

margins on facts otherwise available. 

See section 776(a) of the Act. 

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for 

Facts Available 

In applying the facts otherwise 

available, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that, if the administering 

authority finds that an interested party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information from the 

administering authority, in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title, the administering authority may 

use an adverse inference in selecting 

from among the facts otherwise 

available. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, and Final 

Determination to Revoke the Order In 

Part: Individually Quick Frozen Red 

Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR 70295, 

70297 (December 11, 2007) (Raspberries 

from Chile Final), and Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Certain Circular Welded Carbon-Quality 

Line Pipe From Mexico, 69 FR 59892, 

59896 (October 6, 2004). 

Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to 

ensure that the party does not obtain a 

more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Notice of Preliminary Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, Notice of Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke in 

Part: Certain Individually Quick Frozen 

Red Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR 

44112, 44114 (August 7, 2007) 

(unchanged in Raspberries from Chile 

Final, 72 FR at 70297). Further, 

‘‘affirmative evidence of bad faith on the 

part of a respondent is not required 

before the Department may make an 

adverse inference.’’ See Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 

27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). See also 

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 

F.3d 1373, 1380–84 (CAFC 2003). 

Because the non-responding 

companies did not provide requested 

data concerning their sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the period of review, we determine that 

they have failed to cooperate by not 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Notices 22375 

acting to the best of their ability. See 

Antifriction Bearings and Parts Thereof 

From France, et al.: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Rescission of Administrative 

Reviews in Part, and Determination To 

Revoke Order in Part, 69 FR 55574 

(September 15, 2004) (AFBs 14). 

Therefore, we conclude that the use of 

an adverse inference is warranted in 

applying facts otherwise available to 

these companies. 

C. Selection and Corroboration of 

Information Used as Facts Available 

As facts available with an adverse 

inference, we have selected the rates of 

66.42 percent for AVIAC, Eurocopter 

SAS, Groupe Intertechnique, SNECMA, 

and Technofan (France), 69.99 percent 

for Eurocopter SAS and SNECMA 

(Italy), and 73.55 percent for 

Tsubakimoto (Japan). These rates 

represent the highest rates calculated in 

the history of the respective proceedings 

and are from the respective less-thanfair-value investigations for each 

country. See Final Determinations of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Antifriction Bearings (Other Than 

Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts 

Thereof From France, 54 FR 19092, 

19096 (May 3, 1989), Final 

Determinations of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Antifriction Bearings (Other 

Than Spherical Plain and Tapered 

Roller Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 

Italy; and Final Determination of Sales 

at Not Less Than Fair Value; Spherical 

Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof, From 

Italy, 54 FR 19096, 19101 (May 3, 1989), 

and Final Determinations of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value; Antifriction 

Bearings (Other Than Tapered Roller 

Bearings) and Parts Thereof From 

Japan, 54 FR 19101, 19108 (May 3, 

1989). 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that 

the Department shall corroborate, to the 

extent practicable, secondary 

information used for facts available by 

reviewing independent sources 

reasonably at its disposal. Information 

from a prior segment of the proceeding 

constitutes secondary information. See 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Brazil: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 39940 

(July 11, 2008). The word ‘‘corroborate’’ 

means that the Department will satisfy 

itself that the secondary information to 

be used has probative value. 

To corroborate secondary information, 

the Department will examine, to the 

extent practicable, the reliability and 

relevance of the information used. 

Unlike other types of information such 

as input costs or selling expenses, 

however, there are no independent 

sources for calculated dumping margins. 

The only source for margins is 

administrative determinations. Thus, 

with respect to an administrative 

review, if we choose as facts available 

a calculated dumping margin from a 

prior segment of the proceeding, it is 

our practice to find the margin for that 

time period reliable. See, e.g., AFBs 14, 

69 FR at 55577. With respect to the 

relevance aspect of corroboration, the 

Department will consider information 

reasonably at its disposal as to whether 

there are circumstances that would 

render a margin not relevant. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

See Fresh Cut Flowers From Mexico; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 

6814 (February 22, 1996) (the 

Department disregarded the highest 

dumping margin as best information 

available because the margin was based 

on another company’s uncharacteristic 

business expense resulting in an 

unusually high margin). 

We find that the rates we are using for 

these preliminary results, as identified 

above, have probative value and, 

therefore, are appropriate rates for use 

as AFA. All rates fell within the range 

of margins we calculated for companies 

in the respective country-specific 

administrative reviews and there is no 

information on the record of the reviews 

that demonstrates that the selected rates 

are not appropriate AFA rates for the 

non-responsive firms. 

For more detail concerning the 

corroboration of the AFA rates, see the 

country-specific Memoranda to Laurie 

Parkhill, dated concurrently with this 

notice. 

Export Price and Constructed Export 

Price 

For the price to the United States, we 

used export price (EP) or constructed 

export price (CEP) as defined in sections 

772(a) and (b) of the Act, as appropriate. 

Due to the extremely large volume of 

U.S. transactions that occurred during 

the period of review and the resulting 

administrative burden involved in 

calculating individual margins for all of 

these transactions, we sampled CEP 

sales in accordance with section 777A 

of the Act. When a selected firm made 

more than 10,000 CEP sales transactions 

to the United States of merchandise 

subject to a particular order, we 

reviewed CEP sales that occurred during 

sample weeks. We selected one week 

from each two-month period in the 

review period, for a total of six weeks, 

and analyzed each transaction made in 

those six weeks. The sample weeks are 

as follows: June 7, 2009–June 13, 2009; 

July 5, 2009–July 11, 2009; October 18, 

2009–October 24, 2009; November 1, 

2009–November 7, 2009; January 10, 

2010–January 16, 2010; March 28, 2010– 

April 3, 2010. We reviewed all EP sales 

transactions which the respondents we 

selected for individual examination 

made during the period of review. 

We calculated EP and CEP based on 

the packed F.O.B., C.I.F., or delivered 

price to unaffiliated purchasers in, or for 

exportation to, the United States. We 

made deductions, as appropriate, for 

discounts and rebates. See 19 CFR 

351.401(c) and 351.102(b)(38). We also 

made deductions for any movement 

expenses in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 

Certain companies received freight 

revenues or packing revenues from the 

customer for certain U.S. sales. In 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 46584 (August 11, 2008) 

(OJ Brazil), and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 

7 and in Polyethylene Retail Carrier 

Bags from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 6857 

(February 11, 2009) (PRC Bags), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6, the 

Department determined to treat such 

revenues as an offset to the specific 

expenses for which they were intended 

to compensate. Accordingly, we have 

used the revenues of the particular 

respondents as an offset to their 

respective expenses. 

Consistent with section 772(d)(1) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP by deducting 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities occurring in the 

United States which includes 

commissions, direct selling expenses, 

and U.S. repacking expenses. In 

accordance with sections 772(d)(1) and 

(2) of the Act, we also deducted those 

indirect selling expenses associated 

with economic activities occurring in 

the United States and the profit 

allocated to expenses deducted under 

section 772(d)(1) of the Act in 

accordance with sections 772(d)(3) and 

772(f) of the Act. In accordance with 

section 772(f) of the Act, we computed 

profit based on the total revenues 

realized on sales in both the U.S. and 

home markets, less all expenses 

associated with those sales. We then 

allocated profit to expenses incurred 

with respect to U.S. economic activity 

based on the ratio of total U.S. expenses 

to total expenses for both the U.S. and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
22376 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Notices 

home markets. Finally, we made an 

adjustment for profit allocated to these 

expenses in accordance with section 

772(d)(3) of the Act. 

With respect to NTN, because it 

reported fiscal-year expenses, we 

recalculated technical-service expenses, 

certain U.S. inland-freight expenses, 

indirect selling expenses, and repacking 

expenses using an allocation on the 

basis of fiscal-year value of sales instead 

of its reported allocation on the basis of 

value of sales during the period of 

review. Also, with respect to NTN, we 

recalculated the reported inventorycarrying costs consistent with the 

methodology described in Ball Bearings 

and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Rescission 

of Reviews in Part, 73 FR 52823 

(September 11, 2008) (AFBs 18), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 13. 

With respect to SNR, because it 

reported inland-freight expenses and 

international-freight expenses 

applicable to its U.S. sales on the basis 

of value, we recalculated these expenses 

on the basis of weight. See Ball Bearings 

and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 

12170, 12173 (March 9, 2006), 

unchanged in Ball Bearings and Parts 

Thereof from France, et al.: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 40064 

(July 14, 2006) (AFBs 16), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. 

With respect to NSK Ltd., we 

reclassified certain expenses associated 

with Japanese workers in the United 

States as indirect selling expenses and 

deducted them from CEP consistent 

with the methodology described in 

AFBs 16 and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 26. 

With respect to subject merchandise 

to which value was added in the United 

States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers, e.g., parts of bearings that 

were imported by U.S. affiliates of 

foreign exporters and then further 

processed into other products which 

were then sold to unaffiliated parties, 

we determined that the special rule for 

merchandise with value added after 

importation under section 772(e) of the 

Act applied to all firms that added value 

in the United States with the exception 

of Asahi. 

Section 772(e) of the Act provides 

that, when the subject merchandise is 

imported by an affiliated person and the 

value added in the United States by the 

affiliated person is likely to exceed 

substantially the value of the subject 

merchandise, we shall determine the 

CEP for such merchandise using the 

price of identical or other subject 

merchandise sold by the exporter or 

producer to an unaffiliated customer if 

there is a sufficient quantity of sales to 

provide a reasonable basis for 

comparison and we determine that the 

use of such sales is appropriate. If there 

is not a sufficient quantity of such sales 

or if we determine that using the price 

of identical or other subject 

merchandise is not appropriate, we may 

use any other reasonable basis to 

determine CEP. 

To determine whether the value 

added is likely to exceed substantially 

the value of the subject merchandise, we 

estimated the value added based on the 

difference between the averages of the 

prices charged to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser for the merchandise as sold in 

the United States and the averages of the 

prices paid for the subject merchandise 

by the affiliated purchaser. Based on 

this analysis, we determined that the 

estimated value added in the United 

States by the further-manufacturing 

firms accounted for at least 65 percent 

of the price charged to the first 

unaffiliated customer for the 

merchandise as sold in the United 

States. See 19 CFR 351.402(c) for an 

explanation of our practice on this 

issue. Therefore, we preliminarily 

determine that the value added is likely 

to exceed substantially the value of the 

subject merchandise for Mori Seiki Co., 

Ltd., NSK Ltd., NSK U.K., NTN, 

Schaeffler KG, SKF France, and SKF 

Italy. Also, for these firms, we 

determine that there was a sufficient 

quantity of sales remaining to provide a 

reasonable basis for comparison and 

that the use of these sales is appropriate. 

For the analysis of the decision not to 

require further-manufactured data, see 

the Department’s company-specific 

preliminary analysis memoranda dated 

concurrently with this notice. 

Accordingly, for purposes of 

determining dumping margins for the 

sales subject to the special rule, we have 

used the weighted-average dumping 

margins calculated on sales of identical 

or other subject merchandise sold to 

unaffiliated persons. 

For Asahi, we determined that the 

special rule did not apply because the 

value added in the United States did not 

exceed substantially the value of the 

subject merchandise. Consequently, 

Asahi submitted responses to our 

further-manufacturing questionnaire 

which included the costs of the further 

processing performed by Asahi in the 

United States. We analyzed these sales 

in the same manner as non-furthermanufactured products but deducted 

the value of further manufacturing 

incurred in the United States and an 

amount for profit attributable to the 

further manufacturing. We used the data 

reported in Asahi’s questionnaire 

responses to calculate the furthermanufacturing expense which we 

deducted from U.S. prices. 

There were no other claimed or 

allowed adjustments to EP or CEP sales 

by the respondents. For further 

descriptions of our analysis, see the 

company-specific preliminary analysis 

memoranda dated concurrently with 

this notice. 

Home-Market Sales 

Based on a comparison of the 

aggregate quantity of home-market and 

U.S. sales and absent any information 

that a particular market situation in the 

exporting country did not permit a 

proper comparison, we determined that 

the quantity of foreign like product sold 

by all respondents in the exporting 

country was sufficient to permit a 

proper comparison with the sales of the 

subject merchandise to the United 

States pursuant to section 773(a)(1) of 

the Act. Each company’s quantity of 

sales in its home market was greater 

than five percent of its sales to the U.S. 

market. Therefore, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we 

based normal value on the prices at 

which the foreign like product was first 

sold for consumption in the exporting 

country in the usual commercial 

quantities and in the ordinary course of 

trade and, to the extent practicable, at 

the same level of trade as the EP or CEP 

sales. 

Due to the extremely large number of 

home-market transactions that occurred 

during the period of review and the 

resulting administrative burden 

involved in examining all of these 

transactions, we sampled sales to 

calculate normal value in accordance 

with section 777A of the Act. When a 

selected firm had more than 10,000 

home-market sales transactions on a 

country-specific basis, we used sales in 

sample months that corresponded to the 

sample weeks which we selected for 

U.S. CEP sales, sales in a month prior 

to the period of review, and sales in the 

month following the period of review. 

The sample months were March 2009, 

June 2009, July 2009, October 2009, 

November 2009, January 2010, March 

2010, and June 2010. 

The Department may calculate normal 

value based on a sale to an affiliated 

party only if it is satisfied that the price 

to the affiliated party is comparable to 

the price at which sales are made to 

parties not affiliated with the exporter 

or producer, i.e., sales were made at 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Notices 22377 

arm’s-length prices. See 19 CFR 

351.403(c). We excluded from our 

analysis sales to affiliated customers for 

consumption in the home market that 

we determined not to be at arm’s-length 

prices. To test whether these sales were 

made at arm’s-length prices, we 

compared the prices of sales of 

comparable merchandise to affiliated 

and unaffiliated customers, net of all 

rebates, movement charges, direct 

selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance 

with our practice, when the prices 

charged to an affiliated party were, on 

average, between 98 and 102 percent of 

the prices charged to unaffiliated parties 

for merchandise comparable to that sold 

to the affiliated party, we determined 

that the sales to the affiliated party were 

at arm’s-length prices. See Antidumping 

Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in 

the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 

69186 (November 15, 2002). We 

included in our calculation of normal 

value those sales to affiliated parties 

that were made at arm’s-length prices. 

See company-specific preliminary 

analysis memoranda dated concurrently 

with this notice. 

Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b) of 

the Act, in the last completed segment 

of the relevant country-specific 

proceeding we disregarded below-cost 

sales for Asahi, NSK Ltd., NSK U.K., 

NTN, Schaeffler Italia S.r.l., Schaeffler 

KG, SKF France, SKF Italy, and SNR. 

Therefore, for the instant reviews, we 

have reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect that sales by all of the above 

companies of the foreign like product 

under consideration for the 

determination of normal value in these 

reviews may have been made at prices 

below the cost of production (COP) as 

provided by section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 

the Act. Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of 

the Act, we conducted COP 

investigations of sales by these firms in 

the respective home markets. 

With respect to myonic, on November 

15, 2010, The Timken Company alleged 

that myonic sold the foreign like 

product in Germany at prices below the 

COP during the period of review. Based 

on the information on the record and 

pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, 

we found we had reasonable grounds to 

initiate a COP investigation with respect 

to myonic. See the December 16, 2010, 

Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill entitled 

‘‘Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 

Germany: Request to Initiate Cost 

Investigation for myonic GmbH.’’ 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the COP based 

on the sum of the costs of materials and 

fabrication employed in producing the 

foreign like product, the selling, general, 

and administrative (SG&A) expenses, 

and all costs and expenses incidental to 

packing the merchandise. With respect 

to NTN, we recalculated the reported 

general and administrative expenses by 

including expenses associated with 

replacing the defective product with 

respect to sales made to a certain 

customer category. With respect to 

Schaeffler KG, we did not allow 

Schaeffler KG’s claimed interest income 

as an offset to its interest expenses 

because Schaeffler KG did not 

demonstrate that the interest income 

was short-term in nature. In our COP 

analysis, we used the home-market sales 

and COP information provided by each 

respondent in its questionnaire 

responses or, in the case of Schaeffler 

Italia S.r.l., additional COP information 

provided by its largest supplier. 

After calculating the COP and in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act, we tested whether home-market 

sales of the foreign like product were 

made at prices below the COP within an 

extended period of time in substantial 

quantities and whether such prices 

permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time. We 

compared model-specific COPs to the 

reported home-market prices less any 

applicable movement charges, 

discounts, and rebates. 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act, when less than 20 percent of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices less than the COP, we did 

not disregard any below-cost sales of 

that product because the below-cost 

sales were not made in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time. When 20 percent or more of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the period of review were at 

prices less than the COP, we 

disregarded the below-cost sales 

because they were made in substantial 

quantities within an extended period of 

time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2)(B) 

and (C) of the Act and because, based on 

comparisons of prices to weightedaverage COPs for the period of review, 

we determined that these sales were at 

prices which would not permit recovery 

of all costs within a reasonable period 

of time in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Based on this 

test, we disregarded below-cost sales 

with respect to Asahi, myonic, NSK 

Ltd., NSK U.K., NTN, Schaeffler Italia 

S.r.l., Schaeffler KG, SKF France, SKF 

Italy, and SNR. See the relevant 

company-specific preliminary analysis 

memoranda dated concurrently with 

this notice. 

Model-Match Methodology 

For all respondents, where possible, 

we compared U.S. sales with sales of the 

foreign like product in the home market. 

Specifically, in making our 

comparisons, if an identical homemarket model was reported, we made 

comparisons to weighted-average homemarket prices that were based on all 

sales which, where appropriate, passed 

the COP test of the identical product 

during the relevant month. We 

calculated the weighted-average homemarket prices on a level of trade-specific 

basis. If there were no contemporaneous 

sales of an identical model, we 

identified the most similar home-market 

model. 

To determine the most similar model, 

we limited our examination to models 

sold in the home market that had the 

same bearing design, load direction, 

number of rows, and precision grade. 

Next, we calculated the sum of the 

deviations (expressed as a percentage of 

the value of the U.S. model’s 

characteristics) of the inner diameter, 

outer diameter, width, and load rating 

for each potential home-market match 

and selected the bearing with the 

smallest sum of the deviations. If two or 

more bearings had the same sum of the 

deviations, we selected the model that 

was sold at the same level of trade as the 

U.S. sale and was the closest 

contemporaneous sale to the U.S. sale. 

If two or more models were sold at the 

same level of trade and were sold 

equally contemporaneously, we selected 

the model with the smallest differencein-merchandise adjustment. 

Finally, if no bearing sold in the home 

market had a sum of the deviations that 

was less than 40 percent, we concluded 

that no appropriate comparison existed 

in the home market. For a full 

discussion of the model-match 

methodology we have used in these 

reviews, see Antifriction Bearings and 

Parts Thereof from France, et al.: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 25538, 

25542 (May 13, 2005), and Ball Bearings 

and Parts Thereof from France, et al.: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 54711 

(September 16, 2005), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comments 2, 3, and 5. 

Normal Value 

Home-market prices were based on 

the packed, ex-factory, or delivered 

prices to affiliated or unaffiliated 

purchasers. When applicable, we made 

adjustments for differences in packing 

and for movement expenses in 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
22378 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Notices 

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. Where companies 

received freight or packing revenues 

from the home-market customer, we 

offset these expenses in accordance with 

OJ Brazil and PRC Bags as discussed 

above. With respect to NTN, we 

recalculated the reported inventorycarrying costs consistent with the 

methodology described in AFBs 18 and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 13. We also 

made adjustments for differences in cost 

attributable to differences in physical 

characteristics of the merchandise 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.411 and for 

differences in circumstances of sale in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For 

comparisons to EP, we made 

circumstance-of-sale adjustments by 

deducting home-market direct selling 

expenses from, and adding U.S. direct 

selling expenses to, normal value. For 

comparisons to CEP, we made 

circumstance-of-sale adjustments by 

deducting home-market direct selling 

expenses from normal value. We 

recalculated Schaeffler KG’s homemarket imputed expenses using the 

interest rate we calculated based solely 

on loans denominated in the currency 

in which the home-market sales were 

made (i.e., Euros). We also made 

adjustments, when applicable, for 

home-market indirect selling expenses 

to offset U.S. commissions in EP and 

CEP calculations. 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based 

normal value, to the extent practicable, 

on sales at the same level of trade as the 

EP or CEP. If normal value was 

calculated at a different level of trade, 

we made an adjustment, if appropriate 

and if possible, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See 

‘‘Level of Trade’’ section below. 

Constructed Value 

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act, we used constructed value as 

the basis for normal value when there 

were no usable sales of the foreign like 

product in the comparison market. We 

calculated constructed value in 

accordance with section 773(e) of the 

Act. We included the cost of materials 

and fabrication, SG&A expenses, U.S. 

packing expenses, and profit in the 

calculation of constructed value. In 

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of 

the Act, we based SG&A expenses and 

profit on the amounts incurred and 

realized by each respondent in 

connection with the production and sale 

of the foreign like product in the 

ordinary course of trade for 

consumption in the home market. 

When appropriate, we made 

adjustments to constructed value in 

accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the 

Act, 19 CFR 351.410, and 19 CFR 

351.412 for circumstance-of-sale 

differences and level-of-trade 

differences. For comparisons to EP, we 

made circumstance-of-sale adjustments 

by deducting home-market direct selling 

expenses from and adding U.S. direct 

selling expenses to constructed value. 

For comparisons to CEP, we made 

circumstance-of-sale adjustments by 

deducting home-market direct selling 

expenses from constructed value. We 

also made adjustments, when 

applicable, for home-market indirect 

selling expenses to offset U.S. 

commissions in EP and CEP 

comparisons. 

When possible, we calculated 

constructed value at the same level of 

trade as the EP or CEP. If constructed 

value was calculated at a different level 

of trade, we made an adjustment, if 

appropriate and if possible, in 

accordance with sections 773(a)(7) and 

(8) of the Act. 

Level of Trade 

To the extent practicable, we 

determined normal value for sales at the 

same level of trade as the U.S. sales 

(either EP or CEP). When there were no 

sales at the same level of trade, we 

compared U.S. sales to home-market 

sales at a different level of trade. The 

normal-value level of trade is that of the 

starting-price sales in the home market. 

When normal value is based on 

constructed value, the level of trade is 

that of the sales from which we derived 

SG&A and profit. 

To determine whether home-market 

sales were at a different level of trade 

than U.S. sales, we examined stages in 

the marketing process and selling 

functions along the chain of distribution 

between the producer and the 

unaffiliated customer. If the homemarket sales were at a different level of 

trade from that of a U.S. sale and the 

difference affected price comparability, 

as manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which normal value is based and homemarket sales at the level of trade of the 

export transaction, we made a level-oftrade adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. See, e.g., Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 

1997). 

Where the respondent reported no 

home-market levels of trade that were 

equivalent to the CEP level of trade and 

where the CEP level of trade was at a 

less advanced stage than any of the 

home-market levels of trade, we were 

unable to calculate a level-of-trade 

adjustment based on the respondent’s 

home-market sales of the foreign like 

product. Furthermore, we have no other 

information that provides an 

appropriate basis for determining a 

level-of-trade adjustment. For CEP sales 

in such situations, to the extent 

possible, we determined normal value at 

the same level of trade as the U.S. sale 

to the first unaffiliated customer and 

made a CEP-offset adjustment in 

accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act. The CEP-offset adjustment to 

normal value was subject to the socalled ‘‘offset cap,’’ calculated as the sum 

of home-market indirect selling 

expenses up to the amount of U.S. 

indirect selling expenses deducted from 

CEP (or, if there were no home-market 

commissions, the sum of U.S. indirect 

selling expenses and U.S. commissions). 

For a company-specific description of 

our level-of-trade analyses for these 

preliminary results, see Memorandum 

to Laurie Parkhill, dated concurrently 

with this notice, entitled ‘‘Ball Bearings 

and Parts Thereof from Various 

Countries: 2009/2010 Level-of-Trade 

Analysis,’’ on file in the CRU in the 

General Issues record (A–100–001). 

Weighted-Average Margin 

In order to derive a single weightedaverage margin for each respondent, we 

weight-averaged the EP and CEP 

weighted-average margins (using the EP 

and CEP, respectively, as the weighting 

factors). To accomplish this when we 

sampled CEP sales, we first calculated 

the total dumping margins for all CEP 

sales during the review period by 

multiplying the sample CEP margins by 

the ratio of total days in the review 

period to days in the sample weeks. We 

then calculated a total net value for all 

CEP sales during the review period by 

multiplying the sample CEP total net 

value by the same ratio. Finally, we 

divided the combined total dumping 

margins for both EP and CEP sales by 

the combined total value for both EP 

and CEP sales to obtain the weightedaverage margin. 

Preliminary Results of ChangedCircumstances Review 

On January 14, 2011, Schaeffler 

Technologies GmbH & Co. KG 

(Schaeffler Technologies) requested that 

the Department initiate a changedcircumstances review to determine 

whether Schaeffler Technologies is the 

successor-in-interest to Schaeffler KG. 

On February 24, 2011, we initiated a 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Notices 22379 

changed-circumstances review pursuant 

to the request from Schaeffler 

Technologies. See Ball Bearings and 

Parts Thereof From Germany: Initiation 

of Antidumping Duty ChangedCircumstances Review, 76 FR 10335 

(February 24, 2011). We also announced 

that we would conduct the changedcircumstances review in the context of 

the 2009/2010 administrative review. 

In determining whether one company 

is the successor to another for purposes 

of applying the antidumping duty law, 

the Department examines a number of 

factors including, but not limited to, 

changes in management, production 

facilities, supplier relationships, and 

customer base. See Ball Bearings and 

Parts Thereof from Japan: Initiation and 

Preliminary Results of ChangedCircumstances Review, 71 FR 14679, 

14680 (March 23, 2006), unchanged in 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed-Circumstances Review: 

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 

Japan, 71 FR 26452 (May 5, 2006) 

(collectively CCR Japan), and Industrial 

Phosphoric Acid From Israel; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 

(February 14, 1994). Although no single 

or even several of these factors will 

necessarily provide a dispositive 

indication of succession, generally the 

Department will consider one company 

to be a successor to another company if 

its resulting operation is similar to that 

of its predecessor. See CCR Japan and 

Brass Sheet and Strip From Canada; 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 

(May 13, 1992), at Comment 1. Thus, if 

the evidence demonstrates that, with 

respect to the production and sale of the 

subject merchandise, the new company 

operates as the same business entity as 

the prior company, the Department will 

assign the new company the cashdeposit rate of its predecessor. Id. See 

also Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel 

Pipe From the Republic of Korea; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 

63 FR 14679 (March 26, 1998), 

unchanged in Circular Welded NonAlloy Steel Pipe From Korea; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 63 FR 20572 

(April 27, 1998), in which the 

Department found that a company 

which only changed its name and did 

not change its operations is a successorin-interest to the company before it 

changed its name. 

In its request dated January 14, 2011, 

Schaeffler Technologies provided 

information to demonstrate that it is the 

successor-in-interest to Schaeffler KG. 

We preliminarily determine that 

Schaeffler Technologies is the 

successor-in-interest to Schaeffler KG. 

In its January 14, 2011, submission, 

Schaeffler Technologies provided 

evidence supporting its claim to be the 

successor-in-interest to Schaeffler KG. 

Specifically, Schaeffler Technologies 

demonstrated that, while the business 

concerning ball bearings conducted by 

Schaeffler KG has been transferred to 

Schaeffler Technologies as part of a 

reorganization process, the 

management, production facilities, 

supplier relationships, and customer 

base are materially not affected. All of 

Schaeffler KG’s employees and 

managers remained with Schaeffler 

Technologies after the transfer was 

consummated and continue to be 

employed by Schaeffler Technologies. 

See January 14, 2011, submission from 

Schaeffler Technologies at 5. The 

production facilities now used by 

Schaeffler Technologies are the same as 

those used by Schaeffler KG and have 

not been modified or supplemented 

after the transfer. Id. at 6. Schaeffler 

Technologies continues to deal with the 

same suppliers with which Schaeffler 

KG dealt prior to the transfer and, 

Schaeffler Technologies claims, any 

changes in supplier relationships that 

might occur stem from ordinary 

commercial considerations not related 

to the transfer. Id. at 6. Finally, there 

have been no changes to the customer 

base of Schaeffler Technologies from 

that which existed under Schaeffler KG 

except those that result from the normal 

acquisition or loss of particular 

customers in the ordinary course of 

business. Id. at 6. 

In summary, Schaeffler Technologies 

has presented evidence to support its 

claim of successorship. The record 

indicates that the February 1, 2010, 

transfer of Schaeffler KG’s bearings 

business to Schaeffler Technologies has 

not changed the operations of the 

company in a meaningful way. The 

management, production facilities, 

supplier relationships, and customer 

base of Schaeffler Technologies are 

substantially unchanged from their 

status or circumstances prior to the 

acquisition. The record evidence 

demonstrates that the new entity 

operates essentially in the same manner 

as the predecessor company. Based on 

the above, we preliminarily determine 

that Schaeffler Technologies is the 

successor-in-interest to Schaeffler KG. 

Preliminary Results of Reviews 

As a result of our reviews, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following percentage weighted-average 

dumping margins on ball bearings and 

parts thereof from various countries 

exist for the period May 1, 2009, 

through April 30, 2010: 

Company Margin 

(percent) 

FRANCE 

Alcatel Vacuum Technology ..... 5.12 

Audi AG .................................... 5.12 

AVIAC ....................................... 66.42 

Avio ........................................... 5.12 

Bosch Rexroth SAS .................. 5.12 

Caterpillar Group Services S.A. 5.12 

Caterpillar Materials Routiers 

S.A.S ..................................... 5.12 

Caterpillar S.A.R.L. ................... 5.12 

Dassault Aviation ...................... 5.12 

Eurocopter SAS ........................ 66.42 

Groupe Intertechnique .............. 66.42 

Kongskilde Limited ................... 5.12 

Perkins Engines Company Limited ........................................ 5.12 

SKF France, S.A. and SKF 

Aerospace S.A.S ................... 4.88 

SNECMA .................................. 66.42 

SNR Roulements S.A. and 

SNR Europe .......................... 7.60 

Technofan ................................. 66.42 

Volkswagon AG ........................ 5.12 

Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH .... 5.12 

GERMANY 

Audi AG .................................... 6.26 

BAUER Machinen GmbH ......... 6.26 

Bosch Rexroth AG .................... 6.26 

BSH Bosch and Siemens 

Hausgerate GmbH ................ 6.26 

Caterpillar S.A.R.L .................... 6.26 

Heidelberger Druckmaschinen 

AG ......................................... 6.26 

Kongskilde Limited ................... 6.26 

Myonic GmbH ........................... 11.42 

Robert Bosch GmbH ................ 6.26 

Robert Bosch GmbH Power 

Tools and Hagglunds Drives 6.26 

The Schaeffler Group, 

Schaeffler KG, and 

Schaeffler Technologies 

GmbH .................................... 3.67 

SKF GmbH ............................... 6.26 

Volkswagon AG ........................ 6.26 

Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH .... 6.26 

W & H Dentalwerk Burmoos 

GmbH .................................... 6.26 

ITALY 

Audi AG .................................... 12.32 

Bosch Rexroth S.p.A ................ 12.32 

Caterpillar Overseas S.A.R.L ... 12.32 

Caterpillar of Australia Pty. Ltd. 12.32 

Caterpillar Group Services S.A. 12.32 

Caterpillar Mexico, S.A. de C.V. 12.32 

Caterpillar Americas C.V .......... 12.32 

Eurocopter ................................ 69.99 

Hagglunds Drives S.r.l .............. 12.32 

Kongskilde Limited ................... 12.32 

Perkin Engines Company Limited ........................................ 12.32 

Schaeffler Italia S.r.l., WPB 

Water Pump Bearing GmbH 

& Co. KG, and The 

Scchaeffler Group ................. 2.87 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
22380 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Notices 

5No shipments or sales subject to this review. 

The firm has an individual rate from the last 

segment of the proceeding in which the firm had 

shipments. 

6Briefs should include any comments with 

respect to the changed-circumstances review 

concerning Schaeffler Technologies GmbH. 

Company Margin 

(percent) 

SKF Industries S.p.A., Somecat 

S.p.A., and SKF RIV–SKF 

Officine di Villar Perosa 

S.p.A ..................................... 14.50 

SNECMA .................................. 69.99 

Volkswagen AG ........................ 12.32 

Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH .... 12.32 

JAPAN 

Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd ................. 3.46 

Audi AG .................................... 11.36 

Bosch Corporation .................... 11.36 

Bosch Packaging Technology 

K.K ........................................ 11.36 

Bosch Rexroth Corporation ...... 11.36 

Caterpillar Japan Ltd ................ 11.36 

Caterpillar Overseas S.A.R.L ... 11.36 

Caterpillar Group Services S.A. 11.36 

Caterpillar Brazil Ltd ................. 11.36 

Caterpillar Africa Pty. Ltd ......... 11.36 

Caterpillar of Australia Pty. Ltd. 11.36 

Caterpillar S.A.R.L .................... 11.36 

Caterpillar Americas Mexico, S. 

de R.L. de C.V ...................... 11.36 

Caterpillar Logistics Services 

China Ltd ............................... 11.36 

Caterpillar Mexico, S.A. de C.V. 11.36 

Hagglunds Ltd .......................... 11.36 

Hino Motors Ltd. ....................... 11.36 

JTEKT Corporation (formerly 

known as Koyo Seiko Co.) ... 11.36 

Kongskilde Limited ................... 11.36 

Company Margin 

(percent) 

Mazda Motor Corporation ......... 11.36 

Mori Seiki Co., Ltd .................... 3.50 

Nachi-Fujikoshi Corporation ..... 11.36 

Nissan Motor Company, Ltd ..... 11.36 

NSK Ltd .................................... 9.28 

NTN Corporation and NTN 

Kongo Corporation 13.43.

Perkins Engines Company Limited ........................................ 11.36 

Tsubakimoto Precision Products Co., Ltd .......................... 73.55 

Volkswagen AG ........................ 11.36 

Volkswagen Zubehor GmbH .... 11.36 

Yamazaki Mazak Trading Corporation ................................. 11.36 

UNITED KINGDOM 

Alcatel Vacuum Technology ..... 5.90 

Bosch Rexroth Ltd .................... 5.90 

Caterpillar S.A.R.L .................... 5.90 

Caterpillar Group Services S.A. 5.90 

Caterpillar of Australia Pty Ltd. 5.90 

Caterpillar Overseas S.A.R.L ... 5.90 

Caterpillar Marine Power UK .... 5.90 

NSK Bearings Europe Ltd ........ 5.90 

Perkins Engines Company Ltd. 5.90 

SKF (U.K.) Limited and SKF 

Aeroengine Bearings U.K ..... 5.90 

SNR UK .................................... 5

Comments 

We will disclose the calculations we 

used in our analysis to parties to these 

reviews within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Any interested party may 

request a hearing within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a generalissues hearing and any hearings 

regarding issues related solely to 

specific countries will be held at the 

main Department building at times and 

locations to be determined. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate if one is 

requested must submit a written request 

to the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration within 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice. See 19 

CFR 351.310(c). Requests should 

contain the following: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; (3) a list 

of issues to be discussed. 

Issues raised in hearings will be 

limited to those raised in the respective 

case briefs. Case briefs from interested 

parties and rebuttal briefs, limited to the 

issues raised in the respective case 

briefs, may be submitted not later than 

the following dates: 

Case Briefs due Rebuttals due 

France ........................................................................................................ May 31, 2011 ............................................................................................. June 6, 2011. 

Germany 6 ................................................................................................... May 31, 2011 ............................................................................................. June 6, 2011. 

Italy ............................................................................................................. May 31, 2011 ............................................................................................ June 6, 2011. 

Japan .......................................................................................................... May 31, 2011 ............................................................................................ June 7, 2011. 

United Kingdom .......................................................................................... June 3, 2011 ............................................................................................. June 13, 2011. 

General Issues ........................................................................................... June 6, 2011 ............................................................................................. June 13, 2011. 

Parties who submit case briefs (see 19 

CFR 351.309(c)) or rebuttal briefs (see 19 

CFR 351.309(d)) in these proceedings 

are requested to submit with each 

argument (1) a statement of the issue 

and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. Parties are also encouraged to 

provide a summary of the arguments not 

to exceed five pages and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of these administrative and 

changed-circumstances reviews, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such written briefs 

or at the hearings, if held, within 120 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. In accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have 

calculated, whenever possible, an 

exporter/importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rate or value for 

merchandise subject to these reviews as 

described below. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the period of review produced by 

companies selected for individual 

examination in these preliminary results 

of reviews for which the reviewed 

companies did not know their 

merchandise was destined for the 

United States. In such instances, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed 

entries at the country-specific all-others 

rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate company(ies) involved in 

the transaction. For a full discussion of 

this clarification, see May 2003 

clarification, 68 FR 23954. 

For the companies which were not 

selected for individual examination and 

for the companies to which we are 

applying AFA, we will instruct CBP to 

apply the rates listed above to all entries 

of subject merchandise produced and/or 

exported by such firms. 

Consistent with the May 2003 

clarification, for SNR UK which claimed 

it had no shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States, if 

there are any entries of subject 

merchandise produced by SNR UK into 

the United States, we will instruct CBP 

to liquidate the unreviewed entries of 

merchandise at the applicable all-others 

rate. 

We intend to issue liquidation 

instructions to CBP 15 days after 

publication of the final results of these 

reviews. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Notices 22381 

Export-Price Sales 

With respect to EP sales, for these 

preliminary results, we divided the total 

dumping margins (calculated as the 

difference between normal value and 

EP) for each examined exporter’s 

importer or customer by the total 

number of units the exporter sold to that 

importer or customer. We will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting per-unit 

dollar amount against each unit of 

merchandise in each of that importer’s/ 

customer’s entries under the relevant 

order during the review period. 

Constructed Export-Price Sales 

For CEP sales (sampled and nonsampled), we divided the total dumping 

margins for the reviewed sales by the 

total entered value of those reviewed 

sales for each importer. We will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting percentage 

margin against the entered customs 

values for the subject merchandise on 

each of that importer’s entries under the 

relevant order during the review period. 

See 19 CFR 351.212(b). 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

reviews for all shipments of subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the date of publication, as provided 

by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The 

cash-deposit rates for the reviewed 

companies will be the rates established 

in the final results of the reviews; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cashdeposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in these reviews, a 

prior review, or the less-than-fair-value 

investigations but the manufacturer is, 

the cash-deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; (4) the cash-deposit rate 

for all other manufacturers or exporters 

will continue to be the all-others rate for 

the relevant order made effective by the 

final results of reviews published on 

July 26, 1993. See Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Revocation in Part of an 

Antidumping Duty Order, 58 FR 39729 

(July 26, 1993). For ball bearings from 

Italy, see Antifriction Bearings (Other 

Than Tapered Roller Bearings) and 

Parts Thereof From France, et al.; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Partial 

Termination of Administrative Reviews, 

61 FR 66472, 66521 (December 17, 

1996). These rates are the all-others 

rates from the relevant less-than-fairvalue investigations. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative reviews and preliminary 

results of changed-circumstances review 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1), 751(b)(1), and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: April 14, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9721 Filed 4–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

National Fire Codes: Request for 

Comments on NFPA Technical 

Committee Reports 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) is 

publishing this notice on behalf of the 

National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA) to announce the availability of 

and request comments on the technical 

reports that will be presented at NFPA’s 

2012 Annual Revision Cycle. 

DATES: Thirty-eight reports are 

published in the 2012 Annual Cycle 

Report on Proposals and will be 

available on June 24, 2011. Comments 

received by 5 p.m. EST/EDST on or 

before August 30, 2011 will be 

considered by the respective NFPA 

Committees before final action is taken 

on the proposals. 

ADDRESSES: The 2012 Annual Revision 

Cycle Report on Proposals is available 

and downloadable from NFPA’s Web 

site—http://www.nfpa.org, or by 

requesting a copy from the NFPA, 

Fulfillment Center, 11 Tracy Drive, 

Avon, Massachusetts 02322. Comments 

on the report should be submitted to 

Amy Beasley Cronin, Secretary, 

Standards Council, NFPA, 1 

Batterymarch Park, Quincy, 

Massachusetts 02169–7471. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Beasley Cronin, Secretary, 

Standards Council, NFPA, 1 

Batterymarch Park, Quincy, 

Massachusetts 02169–7471, (617) 770– 

3000. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Since 1896, the National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) has 

accomplished its mission by advocating 

scientifically based consensus codes 

and standards, research, and education 

for safety related issues. NFPA’s 

National Fire Codes®, which holds over 

290 documents, are administered by 

more than 238 Technical Committees 

comprised of approximately 7,200 

volunteers and are adopted and used 

throughout the world. NFPA is a 

nonprofit membership organization 

with approximately 80,000 members 

from over 70 nations, all working 

together to fulfill the Association’s 

mission. 

The NFPA process provides ample 

opportunity for public participation in 

the development of its codes and 

standards. All NFPA codes and 

standards are revised and updated every 

three to five years in Revision Cycles 

that begin twice each year and that take 

approximately two years to complete. 

Each Revision Cycle proceeds according 

to a published schedule that includes 

final dates for all major events in the 

process. The code revision Process 

contains five basic steps that are 

followed for developing new documents 

as well as revising existing documents: 

Call for Proposals; Report on Proposals 

(ROP); Call for Comments on the 

Committee’s disposition of the 

Proposals and publication of these 

Comments in the Report on Comments 

(ROC); the Association Technical 

Meeting at the NFPA Conference & 

Expo; and finally, the Standards Council 

Consideration and Issuance of 

documents. 

NOTE: NFPA rules state that, anyone 

wishing to make Amending Motions on 

the Technical Committee Reports (ROP 

and ROC) must signal his or her 

intention by submitting a Notice of 

Intent to Make a Motion by the Deadline 

of 5 p.m. EST/EDST on or before April 

6, 2012. Certified motions will be posted 

by May 4, 2012. Documents that receive 

notice of proper Amending Motions 

(Certified Amending Motions) will be 

presented for action at the Annual 2012 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES